Adam Turoff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 21, 2001 at 07:44:51PM +, David Mitchell wrote:
> >
> > Also, if we go down the 'have a competition to see who can write the best
> > PDD on subject X' path, can we replace the 'TBD' in unnumbered PDDs
> > with a short string chosen by the
On Wed, Feb 21, 2001 at 07:44:51PM +, David Mitchell wrote:
>
> Also, if we go down the 'have a competition to see who can write the best
> PDD on subject X' path, can we replace the 'TBD' in unnumbered PDDs
> with a short string chosen by the author? This allows us to (hopefully)
> unqiuely
"Bryan C. Warnock" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Well, there's also Meta stuff for discussion that we should probably
> document as well. As much as I disliked RFC, I also disliked PDD, as it
> 'sounds' internal. But do we create a new category for every new area we
> attempt to document, or d
On Tuesday 20 February 2001 21:45, Adam Turoff wrote:
> PDDs, like the RFCs that preceded them, will need to serve multiple
> purposes. One of them will be to catalog (and *name*) ideas that
> keep coming up, including the bad ideas (like the |||= operator)
> that we're tired of discussing. I do
On Tue, 20 Feb 2001, Ask Bjoern Hansen wrote:
> I have created perl6-announce-pdd. Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> for clues.
by the way, Adam Turoff was kind and volunteered to take the PDD
archive pumpkin like he was handling the bazillion RFC's.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] will thus go to him now. Be sure to
On Tue, Feb 20, 2001 at 08:58:03PM -0500, Bryan C . Warnock wrote:
> On Tuesday 20 February 2001 20:32, Adam Turoff wrote:
> > For example, I doubt that we want or need three competing PDDs on
> > Async I/O developing in the Standard track, but multiple PDDs on
> > the same topic would be welcome
On Tuesday 20 February 2001 17:30, Dan Sugalski wrote:
> At 02:15 PM 2/20/2001 -0700, Nathan Torkington wrote:
> >Bryan C. Warnock writes:
> > > Ask, all, are we reusing perl6-rfc as the submittal address, or will
there
> > > be a new one (perl-pdd)?
> >
> >I'm in favour of renaming to reflect th
On Tuesday 20 February 2001 17:38, Ask Bjoern Hansen wrote:
>
> I have created perl6-announce-pdd. Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> for clues.
>
> How should the submission process work? As for the RFC's?
Can you confirm the actual submission address? Are we using perl-pdd? And
did we want to make th
On Tuesday 20 February 2001 18:17, Dan Sugalski wrote:
> >Ultimately, I think we're going to need at least three different
> >types of documentation:
> >
> > * internals design documents (PDDs)
> > * language design documents (PLDs?)
> > * change requests, once we've got something to change (PC
On Tue, 20 Feb 2001, Bryan C. Warnock wrote:
> On Tuesday 20 February 2001 17:38, Ask Bjoern Hansen wrote:
> >
> > I have created perl6-announce-pdd. Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > for clues.
> >
> > How should the submission process work? As for the RFC's?
>
> Can you confirm the actual submissio
On Tuesday 20 February 2001 17:43, Peter Scott wrote:
> I suggest that we clearly delineate the RFCs which were pre-deadline from
> the ones that are post-deadline. The advantage to having the original
> deadline was that it motivated many of us to get off our butts and fish
or
> cut bait. I
On Tue, Feb 20, 2001 at 08:32:07PM -0500, Adam Turoff wrote:
> > >How should the submission process work? As for the RFC's?
> > Sounds good to me.
> Any additional constraints on acceptance criteria?
There is an *expectation* that people will not file PPDs as PPDs unless
they have been agreed up
We lost two of three *and* I missed actual discussion. It must not be my
night. :-)
On Tuesday 20 February 2001 20:32, Adam Turoff wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 20, 2001 at 05:42:01PM -0500, Dan Sugalski wrote:
> > At 02:38 PM 2/20/2001 -0800, Ask Bjoern Hansen wrote:
> > >How should the submission pro
On Tue, Feb 20, 2001 at 05:42:01PM -0500, Dan Sugalski wrote:
> At 02:38 PM 2/20/2001 -0800, Ask Bjoern Hansen wrote:
> >How should the submission process work? As for the RFC's?
>
> Sounds good to me.
Any additional constraints on acceptance criteria? PDD 0 describes
an acceptable baseline on
On Tue, Feb 20, 2001 at 06:17:18PM -0500, Dan Sugalski wrote:
> At 04:01 PM 2/20/2001 -0700, Nathan Torkington wrote:
> >Dan Sugalski writes:
> > > I've been thinking since I sent my last mail on this that we might
> > actually
> > > want to leave the two (PDD & RFC) separate. Keep on with the RF
At 04:01 PM 2/20/2001 -0700, Nathan Torkington wrote:
>Dan Sugalski writes:
> > I've been thinking since I sent my last mail on this that we might
> actually
> > want to leave the two (PDD & RFC) separate. Keep on with the RFCs for
> > 'external' things, and PDD for the actual internals implement
Dan Sugalski writes:
> I've been thinking since I sent my last mail on this that we might actually
> want to leave the two (PDD & RFC) separate. Keep on with the RFCs for
> 'external' things, and PDD for the actual internals implementation of things.
Ultimately, I think we're going to need at l
At 04:43 PM 2/20/2001 -0600, Jarkko Hietaniemi wrote:
>On Tue, Feb 20, 2001 at 02:43:14PM -0800, Peter Scott wrote:
> > At 05:30 PM 2/20/01 -0500, Dan Sugalski wrote:
> > >At 02:15 PM 2/20/2001 -0700, Nathan Torkington wrote:
> > >>Bryan C. Warnock writes:
> > >> > Ask, all, are we reusing perl6-r
On Tue, Feb 20, 2001 at 02:43:14PM -0800, Peter Scott wrote:
> At 05:30 PM 2/20/01 -0500, Dan Sugalski wrote:
> >At 02:15 PM 2/20/2001 -0700, Nathan Torkington wrote:
> >>Bryan C. Warnock writes:
> >> > Ask, all, are we reusing perl6-rfc as the submittal address, or will there
> >> > be a new one
At 02:38 PM 2/20/2001 -0800, Ask Bjoern Hansen wrote:
>On Tue, 20 Feb 2001, Dan Sugalski wrote:
>
> > > > Ask, all, are we reusing perl6-rfc as the submittal address, or
> will there
> > > > be a new one (perl-pdd)?
> > >
> > >I'm in favour of renaming to reflect the new use of the list. Dan?
>
At 05:30 PM 2/20/01 -0500, Dan Sugalski wrote:
>At 02:15 PM 2/20/2001 -0700, Nathan Torkington wrote:
>>Bryan C. Warnock writes:
>> > Ask, all, are we reusing perl6-rfc as the submittal address, or will there
>> > be a new one (perl-pdd)?
>>
>>I'm in favour of renaming to reflect the new use of th
On Tue, 20 Feb 2001, Dan Sugalski wrote:
> > > Ask, all, are we reusing perl6-rfc as the submittal address, or will there
> > > be a new one (perl-pdd)?
> >
> >I'm in favour of renaming to reflect the new use of the list. Dan?
>
> I've been thinking since I sent my last mail on this that we mig
At 02:15 PM 2/20/2001 -0700, Nathan Torkington wrote:
>Bryan C. Warnock writes:
> > Ask, all, are we reusing perl6-rfc as the submittal address, or will there
> > be a new one (perl-pdd)?
>
>I'm in favour of renaming to reflect the new use of the list. Dan?
I've been thinking since I sent my las
Bryan C. Warnock writes:
> Ask, all, are we reusing perl6-rfc as the submittal address, or will there
> be a new one (perl-pdd)?
I'm in favour of renaming to reflect the new use of the list. Dan?
Nat
On Tue, Feb 20, 2001 at 02:15:56PM -0700, Nathan Torkington wrote:
> Bryan C. Warnock writes:
> > Ask, all, are we reusing perl6-rfc as the submittal address, or will there
> > be a new one (perl-pdd)?
>
> I'm in favour of renaming to reflect the new use of the list. Dan?
How about two lists?
At 01:05 PM 2/20/2001 -0500, Bryan C. Warnock wrote:
>On Tuesday 20 February 2001 11:22, Dan Sugalski wrote:
> > D'oh! Yes, mark it as Approved, or whichever step is past developing.
>(I'm
> > a little scattered at the moment, so I don't have the doc handy)
>
>Actually, now that I've been updating
On Tuesday 20 February 2001 11:22, Dan Sugalski wrote:
> D'oh! Yes, mark it as Approved, or whichever step is past developing.
(I'm
> a little scattered at the moment, so I don't have the doc handy)
Actually, now that I've been updating this, I'm going to hold it at
development for a little wh
At 09:05 AM 2/20/2001 -0500, Bryan C. Warnock wrote:
>To date, I've received a whopping zero comments on PDD 0, the defining
>document for the PDD process.
>
>That means one of five things:
>http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/msg01126.html
>
>Nat, Dan: PDD 0 is also still at the Proposed level (even though it
"Bryan C. Warnock" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> To date, I've received a whopping zero comments on PDD 0, the defining
> document for the PDD process.
>
> That means one of five things:
> http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/msg01126.html
Sounded fine to me, but since I'm not one of the Powers, I didnt co
On Tue, Feb 20, 2001 at 09:05:57AM -0500, Bryan C. Warnock wrote:
> To date, I've received a whopping zero comments on PDD 0, the defining
> document for the PDD process.
Uhm, you just turned meta-discussion into meta-meta-discussion, and you wonder
why people aren't commenting? :)
Seriously,
To date, I've received a whopping zero comments on PDD 0, the defining
document for the PDD process.
That means one of five things:
http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/msg01126.html
Surely, if the name of a mailing list can generate so much traffic, then
someone must have something to say, no? I'm not
31 matches
Mail list logo
